"Now of course, I believe that the President is an American. But we also want him to sign this affidavit that says he believes he's an American. And a Christian. And that an American has a right to work. And that Communism is bad. And that presidents shouldn't fire generals just to cover up the biggest cover up that's ever been covered up. Just common sense things. Just good, healthy, bipartisan, American things that demonstrate the president has learned the lessons the voters gave him in the recent election. Have you learned, Mr. President? Have you, at last, no shame?"

The Republicans have been on a long, downhill slide over the last 20 to 30 years to the right. It started in the early 1980's with the Religious Right and Ronald Reagans landslide election. It got worse, slowly but surely.

The groundswell of support for George W. Bush after 9/11 was a crystalizing moment, when they thought they ruled America unchecked, and forever. It was like their dreams had come true.

In 2003 Karl Rove rather famously said the plan was for a "Permanent Republican Majority", where the Republican Party controlled the Presidency, a fillibuster-proof supermajority of the Senate, and the House for a generation or more, decades of one-party rule. Democratic politicians would be a vestigial minority representing a handful of incurably "blue" constituencies such as San Francisco and Boston, with no real power in Congress since anything they would say or do would be bowled over by the Republican supermajorities acting in unison.

In 2004, Grover Norquist said that he hoped that soon, Democratic Politicians would be "delivering pizzas" because that's the only job a former Democratic Congressman would be able to get because of the universal stigma and shame of having been an elected Democratic politician.

They got enthralled with the idea of America as a one-party state, with the Republicans being that Party. Unelected party bosses like Norquist and Rove would set policy for the nation, which would be blindly rubber-stamped by the elected puppets of The Party, and the people would be told what to think and believe via FOX News. Elections would exist only to routinely validate the rule of The Party, the outcomes would never be in doubt.

They want that. Not bipartisanship, not democracy, not a Republic, they want a one-party state with them as the one party. They are still stuck in that mentality, that somehow they think thats what the people want, that's what they crave. . .if only they could just somehow make it happen.

This idea that no matter how much they lose on election day, they still have a "mandate" to follow their party line, that no matter how many times their policy plans like repealing the ACA face defeat at the ballot box (and courts), they just do it over again.

The Tea Party movement just made things worse, they helped purge from The Party those politicians who were moderates, who still believed in compromise, in pragmatism, in moderation.

Don't expect bipartisanship, or any level of cooperation from the Republicans, not from the Republican Party of the 21st century, it just wants wants crypto-fascist rule of the US as a one-party state, nothing less.

The Republicans have been on a long, downhill slide over the last 20 to 30 years to the right. It started in the early 1980's with the Religious Right and Ronald Reagans landslide election. It got worse, slowly but surely.

The groundswell of support for George W. Bush after 9/11 was a crystalizing moment, when they thought they ruled America unchecked, and forever. It was like their dreams had come true.

In 2003 Karl Rove rather famously said the plan was for a "Permanent Republican Majority", where the Republican Party controlled the Presidency, a fillibuster-proof supermajority of the Senate, and the House for a generation or more, decades of one-party rule. Democratic politicians would be a vestigial minority representing a handful of incurably "blue" constituencies such as San Francisco and Boston, with no real power in Congress since anything they would say or do would be bowled over by the Republican supermajorities acting in unison.

In 2004, Grover Norquist said that he hoped that soon, Democratic Politicians would be "delivering pizzas" because that's the only job a former Democratic Congressman would be able to get because of the universal stigma and shame of having been an elected Democratic politician.

They got enthralled with the idea of America as a one-party state, with the Republicans being that Party. Unelected party bosses like Norquist and Rove would set policy for the nation, which would be blindly rubber-stamped by the elected puppets of The Party, and the people would be told what to think and believe via FOX News. Elections would exist only to routinely validate the rule of The Party, the outcomes would never be in doubt.

They want that. Not bipartisanship, not democracy, not a Republic, they want a one-party state with them as the one party. They are still stuck in that mentality, that somehow they think thats what the people want, that's what they crave. . .if only they could just somehow make it happen. ...

YOUR GUILTY CONSCIENCE may FORCE you to vote Democratic... but deep down inside you all secretly yearn for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, AND rule you like a king. That's why i did this - to protect you from yourselves!

It isn't a bad arguement. From a fiscally frugal point of view, he has a point. But this guy cries, whines and disappoints so often with his meager grasp of complexity that it seems impossible to know if that arguement is actually legitimate. What is the real cost of the AMA? Is that short term or long term cost? What's more expensive to the overall economy/health/stability of the nation over the progressive course of time: the up-front cost of the insurance to businesses and consumers, or the cost of healthcare for preventable conditions as the citizenry gets older? Are initial pains and losses worth the eventual gains of the investment in making healthcare accessible to more people? Would a single-payer option have prevented this debate in the first place? Is the AMA acceptable because of its benefits in the face of a looming economic crisis, or is the principle of individual responsibility more important in maintaining the cultural stability of the nation? What is a nation if not the aggregate lives of its citizens?

Aracnix:It isn't a bad arguement. From a fiscally frugal point of view, he has a point. But this guy cries, whines and disappoints so often with his meager grasp of complexity that it seems impossible to know if that arguement is actually legitimate. What is the real cost of the AMA? Is that short term or long term cost? What's more expensive to the overall economy/health/stability of the nation over the progressive course of time: the up-front cost of the insurance to businesses and consumers, or the cost of healthcare for preventable conditions as the citizenry gets older? Are initial pains and losses worth the eventual gains of the investment in making healthcare accessible to more people? Would a single-payer option have prevented this debate in the first place? Is the AMA acceptable because of its benefits in the face of a looming economic crisis, or is the principle of individual responsibility more important in maintaining the cultural stability of the nation? What is a nation if not the aggregate lives of its citizens?

Notabunny:No, he doesn't, and Boehner has no idea what he's talking about. If Boehner were even slightly informed, he'd love the ACA because it cuts the deficit by over $100 billion over the next decade, and several hundred billion dollars more in the following decade. Is Boehner's argument that we can't afford to reduce the budget shortfall? Is Boehner's argument that he intends to cut the deficit by making the deficit worse? Boehner's neocon talking points are at odds with reality. No, there aren't lots of questions which haven't been answered. It's just that the neocons have rejected the fact-based world, and substituted their own.

On the contrary, Boehner knows exactly what he's talking about...or rather, talking to: the GOP base. Never mind that most Americans, and more every day, support and want ACA, the core of of the GOP doesn't. Moreover, the Democrat in the White House wants and supports it, which is reason enough right there to publicly oppose it.

that bosnian sniper:FlashHarry: the republicans kept the house purely thanks to gerrymandering. they actually got fewer votes than the dems. but they've mistaken this "victory" (and completely ignored their drubbing in the presidential and senatorial elections) as a mandate for more derpbaggery. they are sorely misinformed.

I'm not debating this point, but can I get a (credible) citation for this? I've looked multiple times over and can't find one for the life of me, and it would be nice to back up my arguments in further discussions.

Individual redistricting effects are often difficult to explain to someone who isn't from the affected area, but I'll give it a shot... this setup is called the "Pink Peninsula Plan" by its detractors.

Previously, the 11th and 10th districts in NC were drawn using a fairly simple geometric shape, with the border between the two essentially following the line of the foothills. The city of Asheville was centrally located in the 11th district. After the redistricting, Buncombe County and the city of Asheville were quite literally cut in half. Half was added to the 10th district through a "peninsula" extending from Charlotte to Asheville. At the same time, several counties were taken from the 10th district and added to the 11th.

Before the redistricting, the 10th district was reliably Democrat and the 11th was more of a "swing district". After the redistricting, over 9,000 registered Democrats from the 11th (including me) are now voting in the 10th district. At the same time, more than 26,000 registered Republicans were moved from 10 to 11. This turned the swing district into a reliably Republican vote while not affecting district 10's Democratic vote.

The linked Facebook page has a graphic that shows just how ridiculous the new plan is.

Tumunga:fluffy2097: Tumunga: So Obama is willing to rape our wallets to pay for healthcare for the illegals, and it's ok with you farktards?

Won't rape my wallet. My paycheck has never had 6 figures in it.

Most Americans will never see 6 figures on their paychecks.

Are you saying you make 6 figures and don't have any savings? You must be terrible at managing your money brosephina.

Nope, but he's raping my wallet. Gas prices, new Obamacare related medical spending account restrictions resulting in a tax increase to people making less that $50k a year.

I simply cannot believe that there are still people on this planet that believe that the president of the United States has any say, whatsoever, in what gas costs at the pump. It's simply astounding. And deeply disturbing.

Githerax:Popcorn Johnny: Weaver95: do these guys understand that they LOST the election? and not by a tiny margin either - they got a major blow out on almost all fronts. people who lose that badly shouldn't be acting as if they're running the show.

A 1.7 million swing in the popular vote is a very tiny margin.

This is why you are losers. Because you read, watch and believe the propaganda instead of doing investigation.

So far, the official totals are:Obama: 64,390,077Romney: 60,221,499I'll even do the math for you: 4,168,578

A 6.9% lead.

I'll leave it to the serious student to find the source.

Well, sort of. Obama got 6.9% more votes than Romney; but the 'lead', as one usually says, has to do with the percentage of the votes they got. Ignoring third-party votes, that's 51.67% vs 48.33%, and so a 3.35% lead. Factoring in the third-party votes, it's ~3%.

Although, now that I think about it, I think we should switch to your way of speaking about 'leads', since it is more clear. In a 1/3rd vs 2/3rds blowout, the winner would have 100% more votes, but only a 33.33% lead. Also, third-party votes shrink the so-called lead, even though it has nothing to do how much more popular the winner was than the runner up. That Obama got ~107 votes for every 100 Romney votes is more telling than his ~3% lead.

Dougie AXP:Tumunga: fluffy2097: Tumunga: So Obama is willing to rape our wallets to pay for healthcare for the illegals, and it's ok with you farktards?

Won't rape my wallet. My paycheck has never had 6 figures in it.

Most Americans will never see 6 figures on their paychecks.

Are you saying you make 6 figures and don't have any savings? You must be terrible at managing your money brosephina.

Nope, but he's raping my wallet. Gas prices, new Obamacare related medical spending account restrictions resulting in a tax increase to people making less that $50k a year.

I simply cannot believe that there are still people on this planet that believe that the president of the United States has any say, whatsoever, in what gas costs at the pump. It's simply astounding. And deeply disturbing.

Actually, in a way Obama did have to do with the so-called increase in gas prices, but in fact it is a good thing because it is the result of economic recovery. With the economic crisis, and the free-fall in the markets, came a brief period where gas prices were low. Obama came into office when they were at that low. The economic recovery swung the gas prices back up to their pre-crisis levels. (Well, almost. Prices are actually slightly lower now than they were just a few months before Obama took office.)

So, thank you Obama, for taking the actions which resulted in a better economy, and with that higher gas prices.

/Just comparing gas prices alone, without a grasp of what was going on economically, is as stupid as comparing the unemployment at each time without paying attention to the fact that back then we were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs every month, and now we are gaining them.//Many Republicans have the tendency to do both.

"Over the past couple of years, I have noted there are essentially three major routes to repeal of the president's law: the courts, the presidential election process and the congressional oversight process. With two of those three routes having come up short, the third and final one becomes more important than ever."

Congress had their bite at this.. THEY PASSED THE DAMNED LAW.

Congress did its job (badly but eventually). The president did his. The Supreme court did theirs (they should never have been called on but still). The law has passed all of the mechanisms that exist on the route to a law, and on top of that the American people emphasised their support by reelecting the people who supported it.

Gerrymandering and redistricting plays a role for sure, but honestly if you tried to even it out so popular votes were closer to the # of reps, the district maps might look even worse than they do now.Urban areas are denser and tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats (like mine, a fairly normal looking map, Minneapolis and near suburbs- MN-5, 75% and 260k+ votes for Ellison).You'd end up with cities being split up like a pie among many districts, then the districts would each snake out to suburban, exurban and rural areas. You'd likely end with even more districts containing communities that have little to do with each other -- this does happen now, obviously, and it's not hard to find lulz-worthy examples (people post the maps here all the time, IL, MD have some doozies).

Again not saying gerrymandering doesn't exist. Just that it might look even worse the more you try to 'even' things out. And not to go all both-sides-are-bad (I'm a Democrat), but Democrats do represent some of those lulz-y looking districts.

The Ohio GOP created a district that, somehow, encompasses Toledo and Cleveland. Cities that have nothing in common. They did this by stretching the district over Lake Erie. It's an hour drive from here to there in a fairly populated area. In doing so they were able to get Kucinich out of office. Gerrymandring is a huge problem and right now, it's a GOP created problem.

Jgok:that bosnian sniper: FlashHarry: the republicans kept the house purely thanks to gerrymandering. they actually got fewer votes than the dems. but they've mistaken this "victory" (and completely ignored their drubbing in the presidential and senatorial elections) as a mandate for more derpbaggery. they are sorely misinformed.

I'm not debating this point, but can I get a (credible) citation for this? I've looked multiple times over and can't find one for the life of me, and it would be nice to back up my arguments in further discussions.

Individual redistricting effects are often difficult to explain to someone who isn't from the affected area, but I'll give it a shot... this setup is called the "Pink Peninsula Plan" by its detractors.

Previously, the 11th and 10th districts in NC were drawn using a fairly simple geometric shape, with the border between the two essentially following the line of the foothills. The city of Asheville was centrally located in the 11th district. After the redistricting, Buncombe County and the city of Asheville were quite literally cut in half. Half was added to the 10th district through a "peninsula" extending from Charlotte to Asheville. At the same time, several counties were taken from the 10th district and added to the 11th.

Before the redistricting, the 10th district was reliably Democrat and the 11th was more of a "swing district". After the redistricting, over 9,000 registered Democrats from the 11th (including me) are now voting in the 10th district. At the same time, more than 26,000 registered Republicans were moved from 10 to 11. This turned the swing district into a reliably Republican vote while not affecting district 10's Democratic vote.

The linked Facebook page has a graphic that shows just how ridiculous the new plan is.